Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take action when she was groomed and sexually exploited as a child in its care, allowed her to remain in inappropriate placements and breached her confidentiality causing her to suffer from PTSD and live in fear of being tracked down by a family member. This investigation did not reinvestigate the issues that were appropriately investigated through the Statutory Children’s Complaints Procedure. We are recommending a payment in respect of the delay in moving Ms X from the kinship placement in 2009.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to take action when she was groomed and sexually exploited as a child while in its care; allowed her to remain in inappropriate placements; and breached her confidentiality.
2. Ms X says she suffers from PTSD and is in fear of being tracked down by a family member.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council in December 2020 about her experiences as a looked after child. The Council considered the complaint through the Statutory Children’s Complaint Procedure and provided the stage one response on 2 January 2021. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two and the Council appointed the Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) on 23 March 2021. The final report was issued on 9 September 2021. Ms X says that even though the many of the issues in her statutory complaint were partially upheld, she has not had a suitable remedy.
8. Ms X is not complaining about any omissions or faults in respect of the consideration of her complaints. The Council correctly appointed the IO and IP and the report sets out the issues, the findings, what documents were considered and which people were interviewed. Therefore, I am not re-investigating the issues raised and will accept the findings of the IO but will consider the remedies provided in respect of the issues Ms X is now raising with the Ombudsman.

Failure to take action in respect of grooming and child sexual exploitation

9. When Ms X was 14 she met Mr Z who was 22 years old. They subsequently had a child together. Ms X says that in 2017, when aged 19, she was contacted by the police in respect of a case against Mr Z for grooming and child exploitation. The case against Mr Z was dropped but it was reopened in 2019 when Ms X made a complaint against him. Ms X says that even though the Council was aware of the risks it did nothing to stop the relationship and to protect her.
10. The IO found that in March and April 2014, Ms X’s foster carer reported concerns about her behaviour and friendship with Mr Z. The Council carried out a sexual exploitation risk assessment tool which determined she was at medium risk of sexual exploitation. A report of the relationship between Ms X and this older boyfriend was made by the Council to the police. Following this a strategy meeting was held which noted the foster carer had taken a pro-active role and tried to discourage Ms X’s relationship with Mr Z, however all efforts were unsuccessful. Consideration was given to the issuing of a Child Abduction Warning Notice although there is no evidence this was ever issued.
11. In June 2014, Ms X disclosed she was pregnant. Further actions were taken by the police and the Council including a meeting with Mr Z. The social worker concluded Ms X was not being controlled or coerced by Mr Z. The police decided not to take further action against Mr Z even though Ms X was aged 15. The IO report indicates Ms X and Mr Z were keen to be a couple and raise their child together. The decision not to prosecute was in line with Ms X’s wishes at that time.
12. It was noted by the IO that knowledge and experience of child sexual exploitation had grown considerably since 2014 and that responses to such cases and the type of intervention had also changed. The IO concluded that the events took place at a time when practice was very different from current practice. It was considered the Council fulfilled its duty as it was understood at that time.
13. I can understand why Ms X now feels that she was groomed and sexually exploited and that the Council did not do enough to protect her. However, as explained above, there is no basis for me to reinvestigate these matters that were properly investigated as part of the statutory complaints’ procedure. I appreciate that Ms X now views matters differently but the Ombudsman is not a right of appeal. As there is no complaint about the way the matters were investigated, rather Ms X is complaining about the decision reached, there is no basis for me to criticise the outcome.

Allowed Ms X to remain in inappropriate placements

14. Ms X complained that she was placed in accommodation that was not suitable for herself and her son. The IO did not investigate this as a stand-alone complaint. It was part of a complaint that involved other issues involving Ms X’s safety at the accommodation when members of her family attacked her. These other issues were not upheld.
15. Ms X was placed with her son in supported lodgings. She complained about the condition of the property reporting safety issues, mould, mice and issues with using the kitchen facilities. It is my understanding that this placement was agreed as it enabled Mr Z to also live at the property and that he paid rent to the owners.
16. The IO states that the reported conditions sound unsatisfactory. The IO says she saw photographs which supported this view. It was noted that it was Ms X’s decision to move to this accommodation and believes it was because she was keen to be living with Mr Z. At some point, he had to leave the home due to unpaid rent.
17. Ms X moved to accommodation provided by a charity that works with homeless people and young families. Ms X said the furniture at this accommodation was vile, windows did not open and there was inadequate heating. She complained of mould in the bedroom and the washing machine and a bathroom with no window and an inadequate extractor fan.
18. The IO states that the conditions sound less than satisfactory. She said that while this was not local authority accommodation, the Council had some responsibility as it places young people there who have been in its care. She concluded however that it was Ms X’s decision whether or not to move there and for both these properties it had to be acknowledged that she was not forced to move to them.
19. The IO partially upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint. She said that while the accommodation could not be described as unfit, it could not be considered satisfactory as accommodation for a small child. The IO accepted the Council could not have prevented Ms X from taking her son to live in these premises but wonders whether or not it could have done more to advise her against doing so.
20. The Council did not consider it should provide any financial remedy to Ms X in respect of this matter. It said Ms X viewed the properties before accepting them and the IO had not found the properties to be unfit.
21. I am not persuaded any remedy should be provided in respect of this point. There is no evidence the properties were unfit and the fault finding of the IO was on the basis the Council could have done more to discuss whether it was suitable for a young child. I cannot now say with any certainty what the outcome would have been even if the Council had discussed this with Ms X. Ultimately it was her decision whether to move to the properties and there was no basis for the Council to stop her doing so. While it may have been useful if the Council had discussed this with Ms X, I cannot say that even if it had the outcome would have been different.

Ms X also mentioned that she left one foster placement due to problems with the foster carer. She left the placement after refusing to return after school one day. Her belongings were collected by the Council on her behalf and she says that some items were missing. The IO found no evidence to support this and so was unable to say what happened. Ms X says the foster carer claimed to have bought some of the items. She disputes this saying that they were paid for with money given by social care for birthday and Christmas.

22. A social care manager, when interviewed by the IO, said that she would not dispute Ms X’s recollection of the events. The manager also said that disputes about who purchased items were not uncommon and that she would have expected the Council to step in and resolve the issue for Ms X. As a result the Council paid Ms X £300 to recognise her loss.
23. Ms X says that this is not sufficient to cover her losses. I note this happened around 2010 and the IO found no evidence to show what happened at that time. I consider the amount paid to Ms X to be a symbolic amount to recognise that some sentimental items were lost. In the absence of any other evidence I cannot conclude that a further payment should be made.
24. The stage two investigation also partially upheld a complaint about her treatment will living with a kinship carer. Ms X and her two siblings became looked after children in September 2007. In July 2008 they moved to live with a family member. It is acknowledged that this was not a happy time for Ms X. She says the kinship carer favoured her brothers but also accepts she was not as well behaved at this time as she could have been. However, she considers she was ill-treated by the carer.
25. There was an incident in July 2009 when the kinship carer slapped Ms X. This was reported to and investigated by the Council. A strategy meeting was held and a Section 47 visit and enquiry carried out. The enquiry concluded the carer was not coping well and the relationship with Ms X was deteriorating. In September 2009, a looked after child review concluded that despite the difficulties in the placement, the best option was for the kinship placement to continue.
26. The Stage Two investigation found the Council had been in constant contact during this placement and reports of Ms X being happy as well as unhappy during this time. It reflected on the wisdom of the decision to continue the placement after the incident in July 2009 but noted that Ms X and her siblings enjoyed a holiday with the carers after the section 47 enquiry and can see this could be considered proof there was hope for the placement.
27. However it found that that the relationship continued to deteriorate and the Council should have been more alert to this deterioration between July and December 2009 and acted more quickly to move Ms X. It found the Council had fulfilled its duty by placing Ms X and her siblings in a situation it considered to be in their best interests. But found that the final decision, made in January 2010, to move Ms X and her siblings was too long delayed. This complaint was partially upheld.
28. I am aware that Ms X believes the Council should have moved her after she was slapped. I am satisfied this was properly investigated, as did the Stage two investigation. The reasons for continuing the placement were explained. However, as it found the Council delayed ending the placement, I consider some financially remedy should be provided. I gave Ms X an opportunity to say if any further incidents occurred in the period July to December 2009 and she did not provide any evidence. Therefore, I am recommending a small symbolic payment to Ms X to recognise the injustice caused by her remaining in an unhappy placement longer than should have happened.

Breached confidentiality

29. While living in the flat provided by the charity for young families, Ms X’s was attacked by her oldest sibling. This happened in front of her young son and was traumatic for them both. The IO found no evidence that it was the Council that disclosed Ms X’s address. It was noted that Ms X did not make any such accusation. Ms X’s complaints about the financial consequences of this were not upheld.
30. Ms X also complained that when she requested a copy of the information held by the Council, it originally sent a response with many redactions. When a further copy was sent it contained no redactions whatsoever and so information about her siblings was shared and Ms X considers it should not have been.
31. The Ombudsman is concerned with complaints where it is shown that fault by a council causes a significant injustice to the person making the complaint. While there may be fault in this case, I am not persuaded this has caused a significant injustice to Ms X as it was not her data that was incorrectly shared. However, Ms X could raise this with the Office of the Information Commissioner who deal with such issues.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X as a result of the fault recognised above the Council will, within one month of my final decision, make Ms X a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise that she should have been moved from the kinship placement sooner than actually happened.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman